Humans basically need rules and order to survive, I mean, if the government (including the police force and other law enforcement agencies) of you're country decided to disband today, I'm pretty sure the country would practically degenerate to shit with in a number of days, if not hours. This is a pretty uneducated opinion about the topic but I'm sure it holds some truth.

So in theory anarchism could work in theory but never work in the real world, at least I've never heard of it working anyway.

Humans basically need rules and order to survive, I mean, if the government (including the police force and other law enforcement agencies) of you're country decided to disband today, I'm pretty sure the country would practically degenerate to shit with in a number of days, if not hours. This is a pretty uneducated opinion about the topic but I'm sure it holds some truth.

So in theory anarchism could work in theory but never work in the real world, at least I've never heard of it working anyway.

That would happen cause the people simply are not yet willing and ready to rule themselves. If a revolution happened though the people would be willing and ready to rule themselves and the country would not degenerate.

Noobbot wrote:

Any big government has no plan in using capitalism. Capitalism means reduced governmental control over corporations/businesses, which means less tax money, which means smaller government, which means less power. That's why any statist capitalist systems always gravitate toward socialism as they "progress."

So, let's take an example of capitalist institutions. Let's take for example the US goverment and the NATO. These two institutions are capitalist. So, take the example of the US goverment. Wouldn't you call the US goverment a big goverment? Of course you would cause the US goverment not only affect the lifes of Americans but of the rest of the world, too. Take for example the Iraq and Afghanistan War. Take for example the "war on terrorism". Aren't those intervetionist methods a form of imperialism? Aren't big goverments imperialist? Let's take the example of NATO. They invaded the Balkan area and bombarded the Serbs. Wasn't that an imperialist action? Yet, both institutions support capitalism. That's why capitalism cannot work in an anarchistic society. Cause capitalism walks hand in hand with imperialism and interventionism.

Of course that doesn't means that socialism doesn't suck too. It's the other side of the same coin. The only economical systems that could work in an anarchistic society are mutualism, voluntaryism and a form of economical individualism (in the form that you are allowed to do whatever you want to yourself in the economic field).

Noobot wrote:

Mutualism is something I could go for, but I still much prefer individualism. I'm not fully schooled in the ways of mutualism, but something between collectivism and individualism is up for compromise.

Look, I'm an individualist myself and I don't see mutualism as a compromise. Mutualism is still not the perfect way for me though. I'd prefer voluntaryism. But still both mutualism and voluntaryism are a viable alternative to capitalism and socialism as they are non-oppresive.

Noobot wrote:

You cannot abolish all hierarchies, my friend. In primativism, there are hierarchies. You can eliminate the scale, so that hierarchies only exist on a micro level, as opposed to macro, but they can't be entirely done away with.

I'm not a primitivist although I often flert with it probably because of my relations with enviromentalism. The only hierarchies that you cannot eliminate are the ones that were made by Nature. You cannot eliminate the food chain for example. That's true. But you can eliminate leaders, you can eliminate religions, you can eliminate centralized control, you can eliminate sexism and so on.

Andar wrote:

Lostwolf is pretty much spot on though. Societal laws on a small scale make sense. Sure its not "anarchy" in the hyper theoretical sense but I think only Mors was defending the theoretical stuff in pure form.

Some societal laws on a very small scale would make sense but only if all the members of the community accepted these laws freewillingly. But yeah, lostwold is on the spot.

EOS wrote:

I agree with you that I would favor a totally free market of mutualism and/or voluntaryism. I don't think it's ever going to happen, however. If you're an absolutist, I could see why you wouldn't like capitalism, but don't you agree it's the only system that comes closest, especially laissez-faire capitalism? We have never seen laissez-faire capitalism; some people would say laissez-faire capitalism is utopian, and I would agree with them in the sense that politicians will never manage to let their "hands off" the ecomony.

If laissez-faire capitalism is never going to happen why not choose instead voluntaryism for example? Even laissez-faire capitalism is oppresive as it still requires a goverment with centralized control (be it small or big it's still a goverment). It's no wonder that Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker and Max Stirner (the three great proponents of individualist anarchism) rejected both capitalism and socialism.

Osmium wrote:

What if I am friends with people who have weapons? What if we decide to get together as a group and bully all those who are weaker than us into submission? Let's say that we ally with the next-strongest few groups and each take a territory of people to terrorize with our superior armaments. We are not afraid of them fighting back because we are militarily superior, and no greater force exists to dissuade us from our morally unpleasant, yet highly rational, expansion. Not all people will have the connections necessary to defend themselves: some will be old and frail, or economically incapable of paying for a defense group. This situation will naturally occur because people are not born equal: some live under favorable conditions, others do not. Natural selection is favorable toward those individuals and groups which are capable of out-performing other members of their species. If individuals compete, those who are more aggressive and driven are more likely to succeed; likewise with groups. If a group is capable of dominating other groups, through the use of high-grade military weapons and terror tactics, for example, and there is no authority capable of enforcing its laws on the group's actions, it will conquer others.

Unless you can do away with the human desire to compete, your society will never exist. It might be an ideal, but one that is considerably outside the scope of realistic approach.

Keep in mind that you won't be the only one to have guns. What would happens is simple: Another armed group that would oppose you would come and fight you. Both groups would end up dead and with both sides dead life would continue as it was before. As I said before action-reaction

Bezerko wrote:

Have you considered that a person might be more powerful than another individual? OH NOES!

Of course. But remember that the world does not consist only of two individuals. Another strong individual would come up and fight the "strong" individual and they both would end up wounded. It's practically the same I said to Osmium. Remember only one thing people: Action-reaction

Bezerko wrote:

"The crowd". Isn't this against your notion of individualist anarchy? Certainly, a crowd forms and you have a somewhat primitive society. But again, you say there is no law to enforce, so what the fuck is this group enforcing? The notion of punishment implies retribution for a wrong doing, so isn't this a form of law? A "rule" or "law" doesn't have to be written down in large books to be enforced. Again, you manage to contradict yourself.

EDIT: Fixed the quote so it displays properly. I hate trying to organise those things.

The crowd is simply a number of individuals that live in said area. So, it's not against my notion of individualist anarchism as said crowd doesn't have to operate or think the same (as everyone lives, acts and thinks freely in that crowd). That said group (which doesn't have to be the whole of the individuals that live in said area) is not enforcing a law or a punishment. It's just an act of self-defense. It's more than visible that if one tries to impose himself upon one individual he / she could do the same to the remaining individuals. So, simply they are not going to leave him cause they could be his / her next victims.

greysnow wrote:

Mors_Gloria wrote:

Yes, my friend you cannot use the fists that you defend yourself in order to tyrannize others. Cause that will simply lead to the other person to defend back. The law of action and reaction. That's how nature works. So, if you don't want to get harmed do not harm others. As simply no one will be there for you to protect you.

See Osmium's post.

See my response to Osmium

greysnow wrote:

The law will not exist to protect the weak either. And don't assume that every baddie will be getting heat from a crowd. In fact, terror regimes often work successfully by divide et impera. Righteous crowds might not form because any prospective member is himself afraid of the tyrant's retribution, or of that of his friends.EDIT: Also see Bezerko's post.

First, the law have never ever protected the weak. The law exists only for the rich ones. It is a way to keep the mob quiet.

Second, every "baddie" as you name that person (I dislike such terms but for the sake of discussion I will use them) has enemies. If in a society that everyone governs himself, an individual tries impose his way on thinking upon others the rest of the individuals will react and bring him down. It's not a matter of morality (if such thing exists). It's a matter of logic and self-defense.

greysnow wrote:

Wrong again. If I can keep things that I need in my possession, without control nothing prevents me to gather more and more things into my possession, just to be on the safe side if there's a crisis. The desire for safety is the root of greed. If there's a drought, my anarchist ideals that all remaining resources should be shared out equally won't stop me from starving, so I'll suspend my ideals to feed myself at others' cost. As Brecht said: "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral" or "first the feed, then morals."

As Stirner said property comes through might. If you think that your might is higher than the summed might of the rest of the individuals that live in your area then you're free to try to exploit them. Guess what, my friend. They are not going to let you exploit them. They will defend themselves and they will defeat you.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

I'm not going to contribute to the quote pyramide here, so this is in reply to Mors Gloria's post above.

If said said group on a voulantary basis decides to out any individual from the same group or community, they are exercising power in it's most basic form as defined by Dahl and others (i e "A getting B to do what B would not otherwise have done"). The same actions can be held to be true for any time any group of individuals congregate in a common cause. Therefore anarchism cannot do away with power, and that's not even the point. Anarchism is all about power in the first place but against the power that comes with the ability to exploit, an "unjust" division of power if you will.

Power is also why anarchism is such an interesting political philosophy, since it's impossible to do away with. If the right to self rule means he opposition and elimination of all centers of power, such as organised religion, you have to exercise power. In order to hinder the manifestation of different centers of power, you have to excercise power. Power will also always be present in any organised group since the point of organising, from an economic perspective (and I think we can all agree that economic organisations will be needed even under the ideal anarchist state), is the division of labour and hence also the division of power and responsibility. Unless you're prescribing to the primitivist notion of going back to our caves and cultivate our own crops in which case no organisation is needed, since we're all free to fend for ourselves.

Mors, are you trying to say anarchism could work? I highly doubt it ever could work.

Somalia is basically in a state of anarchy as there is no law enforcement agency there, and look at the state that country is in? Walking down the street would probably be playing Russian roulette with your life.

I think about 90% of people would probably agree that some order is better than no order and anarchy basically results in chaos.

Mors, are you trying to say anarchism could work? I highly doubt it ever could work.

Somalia is basically in a state of anarchy as there is no law enforcement agency there, and look at the state that country is in? Walking down the street would probably be playing Russian roulette with your life.

I think about 90% of people would probably agree that some order is better than no order and anarchy basically results in chaos.

Somalia is a war torn country. It doesn't have anything to do with anarchism. Anarchism is not just the abolition of law enforcement. The situation that comes as a product of anarchism is not anarchy. It's freedom. Absolute freedom.

EverSoSentient wrote:

I'm not going to contribute to the quote pyramide here, so this is in reply to Mors Gloria's post above.

If said said group on a voulantary basis decides to out any individual from the same group or community, they are exercising power in it's most basic form as defined by Dahl and others (i e "A getting B to do what B would not otherwise have done"). The same actions can be held to be true for any time any group of individuals congregate in a common cause. Therefore anarchism cannot do away with power, and that's not even the point. Anarchism is all about power in the first place but against the power that comes with the ability to exploit, an "unjust" division of power if you will.

Power is also why anarchism is such an interesting political philosophy, since it's impossible to do away with. If the right to self rule means he opposition and elimination of all centers of power, such as organised religion, you have to exercise power. In order to hinder the manifestation of different centers of power, you have to excercise power. Power will also always be present in any organised group since the point of organising, from an economic perspective (and I think we can all agree that economic organisations will be needed even under the ideal anarchist state), is the division of labour and hence also the division of power and responsibility. Unless you're prescribing to the primitivist notion of going back to our caves and cultivate our own crops in which case no organisation is needed, since we're all free to fend for ourselves.

In an ideal anarchistic state everyone will be free to exercise power to himself and only to himself. We are not talking about exploitative power to others. We are not talking about oppression. We are only talking about self-determination and self-organisation.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Mors, how do you think empires were founded in the first place when at some time in the stone age all we had were free-roaming family clans? How were the first states formed if not by military conquest and subsequent oppression? I do think we (not our genetics, but our culture) have changed maybe an incremental bit in a direction I would call positive, but not that much that I'm optimistic that were we reduced to self-governing local communities again no new empires would form. You discount the human factor too much. There are such things as avarice, megalomania, sadism or just fear and hatred. They will play their role again.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

It's not law that creates order in the first hand. It's the culture/social climate. You can have a very authorian government and still have chaos, such as in many African countries. As I said in another thread, a system with strong anarcho-collectivist tendencies worked near perfectly in Celtic Ireland for over a thousand years, and was the most advanced, scholarly and civilized society in all of Western Europe for centuries. (sources: http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf Page 3-4, 8 http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf). And living standards have usually increased in more recent examples of libertarian socialist communities.

Informal, social hierarchy will always exist, as foundations for it starts to get laid as quickly as two strangers even look at each other. But history points at that if people don't gain any status by climbing up a formal hierarchy, they won't try to, and if there is strong alturistic social pressure, you'll have a somewhat alturistic society. An ethnical type of ''egoism'' basically, but it does work in smaller societies.

As for my own position I'm not a ''full blooded'' anarchist, but still, it's a pretty underrated ideology.

I've taken a look at it. I'm not sure if I am prepared to take a popular article in some Libertarian journal as proof in good faith, and I can't be bothered to start a lengthy research about Irish history now just to disprove your point. But weren't there priest-kings and a high king at Tara and such?

But that's beside the point. Even granted that a system without strong central authority thrived for a certain time and in a certain place, a) that may be a holdout from even earlier times (I said in an earlier post that all we had at a time long past were free-roaming family clans), b) there are multiple instances where a central authority did arise, c) zones without central authority do tend to be conquered or come under the influence of a central state eventually. No one can guarantee that in the event that humanity was living in a multitude of self-governed small communities again (though that's not going to happen), no new empires would form.

Also throughout history is has varied how equal or democratic or generally pleasant to live in small communities have been. From despotism to a sort of egalitarianism with only differences of prestige I think there has been everything.

All I'm saying is that anarchism is not a feasible alternative because there are no guarantees against antisocial behavior. In a kingdom of sheep the wolf shall win, and I'm not even a black metal maniac. I don't buy Mors' action-reaction thing. There are too many ways to cower, bully and manipulate people (and don't discount opportunism) for it to be guaranteed that a healthy opposition against exploitation will form. From time to time it may work out that way, but I think mostly it won't. And then I don't believe that mob action automatically has to be fair or just.

Hanggud wrote:

Informal, social hierarchy will always exist, as foundations for it starts to get laid as quickly as two strangers even look at each other. But history points at that if people don't gain any status by climbing up a formal hierarchy, they won't try to, and if there is strong alturistic social pressure, you'll have a somewhat alturistic society. An ethnical type of ''egoism'' basically, but it does work in smaller societies.

I may be especially cynical, but I think that status and social hierarchy are the seeds from which an actual power hierarchy eventually almost inevitably grows. At some point a prestigious and charismatic person (and/or a successful hunter/farmer/artisan who can afford to give to the needy and throw parties for his followers) will start collecting fans, then turning them into his posse, then start bullying the others. This is the way chiefdom was often first established.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Mors, how do you think empires were founded in the first place when at some time in the stone age all we had were free-roaming family clans? How were the first states formed if not by military conquest and subsequent oppression? I do think we (not our genetics, but our culture) have changed maybe an incremental bit in a direction I would call positive, but not that much that I'm optimistic that were we reduced to self-governing local communities again no new empires would form. You discount the human factor too much. There are such things as avarice, megalomania, sadism or just fear and hatred. They will play their role again.

Empires, cities, states and in general societal structures formed because humans needed to protect themselves of wild animals. As Protagoras said in his dialogue with Socrates (which can be viewed in Plato's book called Protagoras) "humans were born barefoot, unarmed and without shield". So in order to not be consumed by the wild animals they formed societies (one man is not capable of beating a bear but 5 men are).

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Empires, cities, states and in general societal structures formed because humans needed to protect themselves of wild animals. As Protagoras said in his dialogue with Socrates (which can be viewed in Plato's book called Protagoras) "humans were born barefoot, unarmed and without shield". So in order to not be consumed by the wild animals they formed societies (one man is not capable of beating a bear but 5 men are).

Humans never lived alone. They lived in groups. Please don't cite ancient philosophers who more often than not had no clue as evidence.
Also, I was asking about the development after the group stage.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

All I'm saying is that anarchism is not a feasible alternative because there are no guarantees against antisocial behavior. In a kingdom of sheep the wolf shall win, and I'm not even a black metal maniac. I don't buy Mors' action-reaction thing. There are too many ways to cower, bully and manipulate people (and don't discount opportunism) for it to be guaranteed that a healthy opposition against exploitation will form. From time to time it may work out that way, but I think mostly it won't. And then I don't believe that mob action automatically has to be fair or just.

The weird thing is that I am the Black Metal maniac in this one. And to be sincere, I find the two extremely compatible as Black Metal says a hearty "fuck you" to the mainstream society just like Anarchism does (this can also be Nietzsche's fault as Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner, which was an anarchist, and influenced Black Metal in retrospect). But I'm missing the point here

Let's go back to the subject. You talked about antisocial behaviours. And why is bad having an antisocial behaviour? In an anarchistic society if one would want to have an antisocial behaviour he would be free to do so. As I said before, a man has absolute freedom upon himself.

You also talked about opportunists. As we all know opportunism is a political term. When a central goverment does not exist, politics will simply abolish. Everyone would just decide for himself and only for himself.

You also talked about mobs. I dislike mobs as well. Mobs are usually created by the governors and opportunists in order to gain political power. As I said above without the existence of politics mobs would be less likely to appear at least to that scale (we cannot change the amount of idiots in the world).

PS: You called yourself cynic, right? However, do you know that Cynics were practically the first anarchists?

greysnow wrote:

Humans never lived alone. They lived in groups. Please don't cite ancient philosophers who more often than not had no clue as evidence.Also, I was asking about the development after the group stage.

At the hunter-gathere stage we pretty much lived alone

And the further development of empires and such things can be explained via the simple fact that the communities got larger and larger and a small governing body could not handle them. That's why we had empires. At least that's what I think. Aristotle disagrees with that but still he was such a statist

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

It looks as if we're the only ones still talking here. But never mind. Edit: Oh, I didn't see Morrigan until I had posted. Actually I wondered when you might turn up.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

Let's go back to the subject. You talked about antisocial behaviours. And why is bad having an antisocial behaviour? In an anarchistic society if one would want to have an antisocial behaviour he would be free to do so. As I said before, a man has absolute freedom upon himself.

Antisocial behavior as in being a criminal or a bully.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

You also talked about opportunists. As we all know opportunism is a political term. When a central goverment does not exist, politics will simply abolish. Everyone would just decide for himself and only for himself.

No. Politics start when three people meet. When all the men in the tribe say that Garg is a big hunter, then Grey Mouse the Small will not exclude himself, even if he knows better; Garg is bigger, and he's already scowling. Plus, he gets invited to Garg's after-hunt party if he says it too.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

You also talked about mobs. I dislike mobs as well. Mobs are usually created by the governors and opportunists in order to gain political power. As I said above without the existence of politics mobs would be less likely to appear at least to that scale (we cannot change the amount of idiots in the world).

Again, no. Doesn't hold good for spontaneous pogroms, for example. In a world without due process, because there is no other way that justice might possibly be served, the mere accusation that someone has been exploiting someone else might produce a dangerous mob if the alleged exploiter was an unpopular type of person.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

PS: You called yourself cynic, right? However, do you know that Cynics were practically the first anarchists?

I was talking about cynicism in its modern meaning. Replace with "jadedness" if it suits you better. I'm aware of the Cynics, yes.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

At the hunter-gathere stage we pretty much lived alone

Not really.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

And the further development of empires and such things can be explained via the simple fact that the communities got larger and larger and a small governing body could not handle them. That's why we had empires. At least that's what I think. Aristotle disagrees with that but still he was such a statist

Now don't pretend that when small community government became unfeasible a central government was elected by delegates. Those communities were conquered.
And, I hate to point this out, but you seem to be making a point against yourself.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Agriculture spread unequally across history, and in some places still did not completely displace hunting-gathering ways of life but merely complemented it. If you're going to tell me that band societies are "primitive forms of family", I might allow it, but tribes and chiefdoms? Nobody is that stupid. How do the warring Native American tribes (those who didn't develop agriculture until the arrival of Europeans) fit into your model? They certainly "didn't live alone".

Edit: also it appears that you confuse "antisocial" with "asocial". But then again, you are ignorant about everything, so it's no surprise...

Agriculture spread unequally across history, and in some places still did not completely displace hunting-gathering ways of life but merely complemented it.

True, here in Australia, some Northern Aborignal communities actually knew about agriculture and what it could bring to their society but chose not to adopt it, and still do not use it.

@ Mors_Gloria: Your claims about our societal structures at the hunter-gatherer stage are completely wrong, as Morrigan has already pointed out. It is a known fact that hunter-gatherer societies had tightly-knit communities, in which different members of said community had different roles to play, much like we do today. In some cases, the communities were actually quite intelligent, such as one community from the southern tip of South America, who used to trap mastadons in caves, but made sure they remained alive so that they would have a source of meat and hides during the winter. It is absolutely asinine and ridiculous to claim that hunter-gatherers lived isolated lives, as the climate and natural factors of the Pleistocene would not have allowed solitary homo sapiens to survive. Just look at modern day hunter-gatherer societies, such as the San people of Namibia, who still function on strong communal bonds and roles, which enables them to ensure their survival in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Criminals and bullies are most often victims of society. It's known from psychological researches that most criminals have been victimized in earlier stages of their life, something that resulted to various syndromes and psychological complexes. And that's because sometime in the past someone tried to impose himself / herself over said person. In an anarchistic society that won't happen. Really, go to Christiania in Denmark and try to find a bully. I can assure you that if they even exist their number is way smaller than on most societies.

greysnow wrote:

No. Politics start when three people meet. When all the men in the tribe say that Garg is a big hunter, then Grey Mouse the Small will not exclude himself, even if he knows better; Garg is bigger, and he's already scowling. Plus, he gets invited to Garg's after-hunt party if he says it too.

Why are you talking about trives and hunter-gatherer societal format? I never proposed something like that.

Anyway, the above example you gave is simply a matter of social relations. It doesn't has to do with politics.

greysnow wrote:

Again, no. Doesn't hold good for spontaneous pogroms, for example. In a world without due process, because there is no other way that justice might possibly be served, the mere accusation that someone has been exploiting someone else might produce a dangerous mob if the alleged exploiter was an unpopular type of person.

No. If proof do not exist in order to prove that this person exploited someone then nothing is going to happen. No one is going to care if said person is a popular or an unpopular person.

greysnow wrote:

Now don't pretend that when small community government became unfeasible a central government was elected by delegates. Those communities were conquered.And, I hate to point this out, but you seem to be making a point against yourself.

I never said that a central goverment was elected. Only in Athens that happened. All the other areas was conquered (with Alexander the Great being the biggest slayer of those times). But why do you feel that I make a point against myself?

Morrigan wrote:

Agriculture spread unequally across history, and in some places still did not completely displace hunting-gathering ways of life but merely complemented it. If you're going to tell me that band societies are "primitive forms of family", I might allow it, but tribes and chiefdoms? Nobody is that stupid. How do the warring Native American tribes (those who didn't develop agriculture until the arrival of Europeans) fit into your model? They certainly "didn't live alone".

I was practically talking about the hunter-gatherer society of the Neolithic era. You're talking about way more modern times.

@Call_From_The_Tower, the reply I gave to Morrigan stands for you too. We are talking about different eras.

Morrigan wrote:

Edit: also it appears that you confuse "antisocial" with "asocial". But then again, you are ignorant about everything, so it's no surprise...

Does a word "asocial" exist? That's news to me.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Criminals and bullies are most often victims of society. It's known from psychological researches that most criminals have been victimized in earlier stages of their life, something that resulted to various syndromes and psychological complexes. And that's because sometime in the past someone tried to impose himself / herself over said person. In an anarchistic society that won't happen.

Why won't it happen? Because you say so? You'd have no more authority than anyone else in an anarchistic society, nor would there be any government or laws to back your claim. If someone wants to impose themself on another, there is little to stop them unless that person is capable of warding them off themselves.

Quote:

Anyway, the above example you gave is simply a matter of social relations. It doesn't has to do with politics.

pol - i - tics (noun)The use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

Social relations are politics. Politics are founded upon the interactions of human beings with one another. The only time they would not exist, were if each human being were completely isolated from one another.

Quote:

No. If proof do not exist in order to prove that this person exploited someone then nothing is going to happen. No one is going to care if said person is a popular or an unpopular person.

What world do you live in? People didn't need proof to lynch witches or heathens back in the day, nor did the KKK need a credible reason to hang black people and Catholics from trees.

Criminals and bullies are most often victims of society yadda yadda yadda

Sorry, but this is just too shallow for me.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

greysnow wrote:

No. Politics start when three people meet. When all the men in the tribe say...

Why are you talking about trives and hunter-gatherer societal format? I never proposed something like that.Anyway, the above example you gave is simply a matter of social relations. It doesn't has to do with politics.

I guess because we were talking about hunter-gatherers earlier. But you can effortlessly apply it to today's social relations too. And politics is the science of social relations.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

No. If proof do not exist in order to prove that this person exploited someone then nothing is going to happen. No one is going to care if said person is a popular or an unpopular person.

Aaarrgh... the pain, it hurts... do you really think mobs are in the business of looking for proof? Please learn something about human nature before you embarrass yourself further. I actually wanted to make a post criticizing Morrigan for showing up in every thread you post in and calling you ignorant, but I start to see why she would react that way.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

I never said that a central goverment was elected. Only in Athens that happened. All the other areas was conquered (with Alexander the Great being the biggest slayer of those times). But why do you feel that I make a point against myself?

You said:

Mors_Gloria wrote:

And the further development of empires and such things can be explained via the simple fact that the communities got larger and larger and a small governing body could not handle them. That's why we had empires. At least that's what I think.

In this sentence you concede that a small governing body cannot handle a larger community, and that, as communities grow larger, an empire will be required. It means that anarchism will not work with larger communities, because "empire" = "NOT anarchism". That's probably not what you wanted to communicate, but it read that way.

Anyway, I think I give up.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Mors, even the Neanderthals and Homo Erectus were not solitary beings. Even they had some sort of community.Your "WRONG ERA!!!" argument is completely invalid not only for Homo Sapiens, but much of the Human family.

Mors_Gloria wrote:

It's freedom. Absolute freedom.

Well, if anarchism ever takes off, I'm sure as hell going to use my "absolute freedom" to form a society and beat the shit out of whoever I can, just to fuck you off. You're dreaming of a perfect world Mors. Perfect doesn't exist mate, that's a fact.